sideviews

Regurgitating knowledge – Nur Adilah Ramli

February 29, 2016

As the new term has started, again, my mind is fluttered by the thought of memorising notes to be churned out during exams, only to be forgotten right after.

While those with photographic memory can ace the exams with ease, those with not as good memory capacity may end up with poor grades, which are unfortunately used as the indicator of intelligence.

Although I'm not at all denying that memorising is one of the techniques used in gaining knowledge, that I question about its meaningfulness may indirectly suggest that I am not a fan of such a technique. Which is true.

But really, what I am arguing about is not the act of memorising, rather the understanding of the knowledge itself, which appears to be or might indeed be missing in the process.

If we memorise notes without internalising the knowledge that the texts carry, we are no different than parrots which simply imitate sounds without reasoning. And that is the danger of memorising done in the absence of understanding.

The other day, my lecturer struck me with a statement worth pondering upon. The statement went something along the lines, "Rather than memorising notes to be vomited on exam papers, wouldn't it be better if students are asked to memorise the Quran (as everyone in the class is a Muslim)? … The four-month semester will only be a waste if the notes are meant for exam purposes only."

The statement bears a degree of truth, especially as I realise that I can hardly remember what I've learned in semesters past. Which leads me to the question, "Have I been regurgitating knowledge?", to which I nod with shame.

In humanities courses to which I belong, it is well-known that students in such disciplines are expected to bury their heads in piles of books.

This is also the case for students in other courses. No question about that. But comparatively, in humanities, the learning is less focused on the hands-on aspect.

I'm not saying that we are less practical, but I'm trying to point out that because our learning is more book-oriented, we may fall victim to the memorising technique, which won't last long, unless it is preceded by understanding and proceeded with implementation.

So the danger creeps in when students find little relevance or no relevance at all in the memorised texts.

Except for scoring exams, they might not be able to retrieve the memory once the exam is done and over with. Worse if they find the knowledge irrelevant, and therefore has nothing to do with their lives.

But memorising alone, however ineffective it seems to be in the long run, undoubtedly adds value to our knowledge.

The memorised knowledge can be strengthened only if it is put into thought. When I learn about political thinkers and their ideologies, I try to make sense of them, and try to compare and contrast them with the political scenarios in the current context.

I may forget the details of the concepts often tested in exams, but I can generally understand the ideas proposed by the thinkers.

But unfortunately, answers should correspond to the marking schemes, thus the answers given based on my understanding might not be counted if they are not worded according to the schemes. And this is the fault in our system.

But before I go too far, I have to clarify that, of course, the answer scripts, in order to be rewarded with marks, must follow a certain guidelines.

Not following the guidelines can be said to be tantamount to violating the principles of knowledge.

Thus, I do not mean to say that even when the answers are wrong, the teachers should mark them as right. No, that is not what I mean.

What I mean to say is that instead of focusing too much on marks based on what is produced on exam scripts, focus should be given more on the students' other areas of specialities.

Our resources may be scarce to cater to each student's need, thus a more comprehensive approach, which has already been installed, is commendable for it no longer tests students on their memorising ability per se.

Course works consisting of group project, individual assignment, presentation, should help students to work on improving themselves in many aspects, aside from their memorising capability.

Thankfully, we have a fairly good system that looks beyond what is written on paper!

It would be upsetting if students are given merit based on their marks contributed mostly by how large of information their brain can store.

Thus, like what has been already practised, especially in higher learning institutions, the system should be all-rounded with emphasis given on the practicality of the knowledge learned.

And this is both the duty of the teachers and the students who should relate the topics covered in the syllabus with the real world.

If there is no connection made between the classroom syllabus and the world, students will find it hard to understand the knowledge and even harder to reproduce it to offer solutions to the world communities.

Embracing knowledge and implementing it are, needless to say, crucial as employers are searching for candidates who are equipped with soft skills, which may be more important than the grade scored.

For that, students themselves should start viewing knowledge as something more than what is memorised.

Also, the same lecturer who struck me with an eye-opening statement added that if employers are indeed scouting for robot-like humans-who-never-forget, they wouldn't have the need to hire anyone – they can just consult Google. And again, it's true! – February 29, 2016.

* Nur Adilah Ramli reads The Malaysian Insider.

* This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malaysian Insider.